Search

Aim Pneumonia is the leading infectious cause of death among children under five globally. Many pneumonia deaths result from inappropriate treatment due to misdiagnosis of signs and symptoms. This study aims to identify whether health extension workers (HEWs) in Ethiopia, using an automated multimodal device (Masimo Rad‐G), adhere to required guidelines while assessing and classifying under five children with cough or difficulty breathing and to understand device acceptability. Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted in three districts of Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region, Ethiopia. Between September and December 2018, 133 HEWs were directly observed using Rad‐G while conducting 599 sick child consultations. Usability was measured as adherence to the World Health Organization requirements to assess fast breathing and device manufacturer instructions for use. Acceptability was assessed using semi‐structured interviews with HEWs, first‐level health facility workers and caregivers. Results Adherence using the Rad‐G routinely for 2 months was 85.3% (95% CI 80.2, 89.3). Health workers and caregivers stated a preference for Rad‐G. Users highlighted a number of device design issues. Conclusion While demonstrating high levels of acceptability and usability, the device modifications to consider include better probe fit, improved user interface with exclusive age categories and simplified classification outcomes.

Background Acute respiratory infections (ARIs), primarily pneumonia, are the leading infectious cause of under-5 mortality worldwide. Manually counting respiratory rate (RR) for 60 seconds using an ARI timer is commonly practiced by community health workers to detect fast breathing, an important sign of pneumonia. However, correctly counting breaths manually and classifying the RR is challenging, often leading to inappropriate treatment. A potential solution is to introduce RR counters, which count and classify RR automatically. Objective This study aims to determine how the RR count of an Automated Respiratory Infection Diagnostic Aid (ARIDA) agrees with the count of an expert panel of pediatricians counting RR by reviewing a video of the child’s chest for 60 seconds (reference standard), for children aged younger than 5 years with cough and/or difficult breathing. Methods A cross-sectional study aiming to enroll 290 children aged 0 to 59 months presenting to pediatric in- and outpatient departments at a teaching hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, was conducted. Enrollment occurred between April and May 2017. Once enrolled, children participated in at least one of three types of RR evaluations: (1) agreement—measure the RR count of an ARIDA in comparison with the reference standard, (2) consistency—measure the agreement between two ARIDA devices strapped to one child, and (3) RR fluctuation—measure RR count variability over time after ARIDA attachment as measured by a manual count. The agreement and consistency of expert clinicians (ECs) counting RR for the same child with the Mark 2 ARI timer for 60 seconds was also measured in comparison with the reference standard. Results Primary outcomes were (1) mean difference between the ARIDA and reference standard RR count (agreement) and (2) mean difference between RR counts obtained by two ARIDA devices started simultaneously (consistency). Conclusions Study strengths included the design allowing for comparison between both ARIDA and the EC with the reference standard RR count. A limitation is that exactly the same set of breaths were not compared between ARIDA and the reference standard since ARIDA can take longer than 60 seconds to count RR. Also, manual RR counting, even when aided by a video of the child’s chest movements, is subject to human error and can result in low interrater reliability. Further work is needed to reach global consensus on the most appropriate reference standard and an acceptable level of agreement to provide ministries of health with evidence to make an informed decision on whether to scale up new automated RR counters. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03067558; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03067558 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR1-10.2196/16531

Aim Pneumonia is the leading cause of child death after the neonatal period, resulting from late care seeking and inappropriate treatment. Diagnosis involves counting respiratory rate (RR); however, RR counting remains challenging for health workers and miscounting, and misclassification of RR is common. We evaluated the usability of a new automated RR counter, the Philips Children's Respiratory Monitor (ChARM), to Female Community Health Volunteers (FCHVs), and its acceptability to FCHVs and caregivers in Nepal. Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted in Jumla district, Nepal. About 133 FCHVs were observed between September and December 2018 when using ChARM during 517 sick child consultations, 264 after training and 253 after 2 months of routine use of ChARM. Acceptability of the ChARM was explored using semi‐structured interviews. Results FCHV adherence to guidelines after 2 months of using ChARM routinely was 52.8% (95% CI 46.6‐58.9). The qualitative findings suggest that ChARM is acceptable to FCHVs and caregivers; however, capacity constraints such as older age and low literacy and impacted device usability were mentioned. Conclusion Further research on the performance, cost‐effectiveness and implementation feasibility of this device is recommended, especially among low‐literate CHWs.

Aim Manually counting respiratory rate (RR) is commonly practiced by community health workers to detect fast breathing, an important sign of childhood pneumonia. Correctly counting and classifying breaths manually is challenging, often leading to inappropriate treatment. This study aimed to determine the usability of a new automated RR counter (ChARM) by health extension workers (HEWs), and its acceptability to HEWs, first‐level health facility workers (FLHFWs) and caregivers in Ethiopia. Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted in one region of Ethiopia between May and August 2018. A total of 131 HEWs were directly observed conducting 262 sick child consultations after training and 337 after 2 months. Usability was measured as adherence to the WHO requirements to assess fast breathing and device manufacturer instructions for use (IFU). Acceptability was measured through semi‐structured interviews. Results After 2 months, HEWs were shown to adhere to the requirements in 74.6% consultations; an increase of 18.6% after training (P

Background Manually counting a child’s respiratory rate (RR) for 60 seconds using an acute respiratory infection timer is the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended method for detecting fast breathing as a sign of pneumonia. However, counting the RR is challenging and misclassification of an observed rate is common, often leading to inappropriate treatment. To address this gap, the acute respiratory infection diagnostic aid (ARIDA) project was initiated in response to a call for better pneumonia diagnostic aids and aimed to identify and assess automated RR counters for classifying fast breathing pneumonia when used by front-line health workers in resource-limited community settings and health facilities. The Children’s Automated Respiration Monitor (ChARM), an automated RR diagnostic aid using accelerometer technology developed by Koninklijke Philips NV, and the Rad-G, a multimodal RR diagnostic and pulse oximeter developed by Masimo, were the two devices tested in these studies conducted in the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region in Ethiopia and in the Karnali region in Nepal. Objective In these studies, we aimed to understand the usability of two new automated RR diagnostic aids for community health workers (CHWs; health extension workers [Ethiopia] and female community health volunteers [Nepal]) and their acceptability to CHWs in Ethiopia and Nepal, first-level health facility workers (FLHFWs) in Ethiopia only, and caregivers in both Ethiopia and Nepal. Methods This was a prospective, cross-sectional study with a mixed methods design. CHWs and FLHFWs were trained to use both devices and provided with refresher training on all WHO requirements to assess fast breathing. Immediately after training, CHWs were observed using ARIDA on two children. Routine pneumonia case management consultations for children aged 5 years and younger and the device used for these consultations between the first and second consultations were recorded by CHWs in their patient log books. CHWs were observed a second time after 2 months. Semistructured interviews were also conducted with CHWs, FLHFWs, and caregivers. The proportion of consultations with children aged 5 years and younger where CHWs using an ARIDA and adhered to all WHO requirements to assess fast breathing and device manufacturer instructions for use after 2 months will be calculated. Qualitative data from semistructured interviews will be analyzed using a thematic framework approach. Results The ARIDA project was funded in November 2015, and data collection was conducted between April and December 2018. Data analysis is currently under way and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2020. Conclusions This is the first time the usability and acceptability of automated RR counters in low-resource settings have been evaluated. Outcomes will be relevant for policy makers and are important for future research of this new class of diagnostic aids for the management of children with suspected pneumonia. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/14405